Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
Rajendiran – Appellant
Versus
Girija – Respondent
C.M.A.No.1698 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.14925 of 2025 | MCOP No.89 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Mani
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Kamadevan for R1, Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan for R3
The Court enhanced compensation by recognizing the negligence of the parked vehicle, establishing contributory negligence at 10%, and applying a 40% future prospects increase, reflecting the deceased's earning capacity post-accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Original award of Rs.13,53,170/- enhanced to Rs.23,62,050/- reflecting future prospects of 40% and correcting the contributory negligence to 10% - The negligence was primarily attributed to the parked vehicle without reflectors. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)
(B) Contributory negligence - The court clarified that the deceased's lack of a valid driving license at the time of the accident justifies a reduced percentage of contributory negligence from 30% to 10%. Findings establish that there was no evidence of prior recklessness on the part of the deceased. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
(C) Compensation calculation - The court distinguished between the notional income for the deceased established at Rs.15,000/- and future prospect considerations applied per the precedent. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, who earned Rs.95,000/- monthly from driving a lorry and agriculture, died when a tractor parked recklessly collided with his vehicle. The claimant sought Rs.50,00,000/- for loss of dependency, but the Tribunal initially awarded Rs.13,53,170/- after a contributory negligence deduction of 30%.
Findings of Court:
The appeal resulted in the Tribunal's compensation being enhanced to Rs.23,62,050/- after reconsideration of negligence and overlooking compensatory future earnings.
Issues: The primary issues included the correct attribution of negligence and determining a suitable compensation amount reflective of future losses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of accurate evidence in assessing negligence and the appropriateness of adding future prospects to the compensation awarded, clarifying that conjecture cannot replace clear evidence.
Result: The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. negligent driving and accident details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants claim errors in compensation and liability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on contributory negligence. (Para 7) |
| 4. modification of awarded compensation. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This case is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned’’
2.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / claimant submitted that in the above said order dated 06.01.2026, no permission was granted to the 1st respondent / claimant to withdraw her share ordered by the Tribunal which was already deposited by the Insurance Company and hence, seeks to include the said clause in the order portion. Considering the submissions made by the 1st respondent/claimant, Registry is directed to replace the paragraph No.9 (vi) as follows:
“ 9…….
(vi) The 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw her share with cost and interest, which was already deposited by the Insurance Company to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.89 of 2023 On the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal (Principal District Court) Ariyalur, after filing a proper petition for withdrawal. After the deposit of the enhanced compensation ordered by this Court, the appellant shall withdraw the same along with the share ordered by the Tribunal after filing necessary application.’’
3.The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order and issue fresh order copy forthwith.
24.02.2026 vsn K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.
vsn C.M.A.No.1698 of 2025 in CMP. No. 14925 of 2025
24.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 06.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
C.M.A.No. 1698 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.14925 of 2025 Rajendiran …Appellant Vs.
1. Girija
2. Periyasamy
3. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Pvt. Limited
12H2035, 15th Main Road, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai 600 101 …Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and Award dated 24.01.2025 made in MCOP No.89 of 2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ariyalur.
For Appellant : Mr. P. Mani For Respondents : Mr. S. Kamadevan for R1 Mr. P. Suresh Srinivasan for R3 R2 – No appearance.
JUDGME NT
This Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellant / 3rd respondent in MCOP No.89 of 2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Ariyalur, for enhancement of the sum awarded and assailing the apportionment made by the claims tribunal.
2. The deceased Prabhakaran was earning Rs.95,000/- per month by way of owner-cum-driver of lorry and was also doing agriculture. On 29.01.2023, at about 9.45 p.m. the deceased was driving the Splender Plus two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 49 L 3146 and while proceeding on the Sathamangalam-Thirumannur NH Road, a Tractor attached with tipper bearing Registration No. TN 32 T 3188 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased vehicle, as a result of which the said Prabhakaran died on the spot. At the relevant point of time, the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition for awarding them a total sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused to them due to the death of deceased Prabhakaran, claiming them to be dependants of the deceased. By the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has accepted the claim of the claimants in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.13,53,170/- in favour of the claimants against the respondents, after deducting 30% for deceased's contributory negligence. Further, the learned Tribunal, in the total award amount apportioned a sum of Rs.53,170/- to the appellant / 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by this, the appellant / 3rd defendant is on appeal.
3. Mr.P. Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant / 3rd respondent submits that the learned
